<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (7) TMI 131 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31340</link>
    <description>A product marketed as &quot;Poleyol FSO&quot; was examined under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff. Chemical testing showed that a 0.5% solution formed a stable emulsion and reduced water surface tension below 45 dynes/cm, satisfying the statutory test for an organic surface-active agent under Note 3 to Chapter 34. The test report did not establish the presence of free oil, and a later clarificatory letter based on the sample&#039;s physical form was not treated as sufficient to override the chemical evidence. The material was therefore classifiable under Heading 34.02, and the Revenue did not prove that any surface-active function was only subsidiary to the alleged fat-liquoring function.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 131 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31340</link>
      <description>A product marketed as &quot;Poleyol FSO&quot; was examined under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff. Chemical testing showed that a 0.5% solution formed a stable emulsion and reduced water surface tension below 45 dynes/cm, satisfying the statutory test for an organic surface-active agent under Note 3 to Chapter 34. The test report did not establish the presence of free oil, and a later clarificatory letter based on the sample&#039;s physical form was not treated as sufficient to override the chemical evidence. The material was therefore classifiable under Heading 34.02, and the Revenue did not prove that any surface-active function was only subsidiary to the alleged fat-liquoring function.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>